Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the more profound exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime and international fraud against the government present significant challenges.

Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police investigation 

I needed to begin this narrative about the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) during the crucial period at the end of the COT arbitrations in 1999, rather than tracing back to its origins in 1987. That year stands out as a pivotal moment in my life when I purchased my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, a picturesque retreat nestled just 18 kilometers from the bustling seaport of Portland, Victoria, Australia. This venture came after I had spent 28 tumultuous years navigating the waves as a marine cook and seafarer, interspersed with my experiences as an industrial caterer in remote mining camps, bustling holiday resorts, and a licensee managing thriving hotels, motels, and restaurants across Victoria. 

Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term

Now, I find myself questioning whether I will face imprisonment in 2025 for shedding light on this glaringly discriminatory act by the Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens. I am convinced that if the current Labor government were to seek a government-appointed representative to review the two In-Camera Hansards from July 6 and 9, 1998, that representative would have to advise the Anthony Albanese government of their moral obligation to grant compensation, as former Labor Senator Chris Schacht had insisted should have been the case back in 1998. Tragically, I reflect on the fact that at least three of these sixteen individuals have since passed away, making the urgency of addressing these injustices all the more poignant.

It may be challenging to comprehend, but in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government issued written threats (refer to Senate Evidence File No 12) warning me of potential contempt charges if I ever dared to disclose the contents of these in-camera Hansard records. These pivotal documents had the power to sway the outcomes of our cases had the COT claimants chosen to challenge the arbitration process. This situation raises a profound question: Where is the justice in such a scenario?

The Senate Hansard, dated 9 July 1998, shows National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashing a fiery verbal attack at a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process, the same person who withheld my May 1994 FOI request until 23 May 1995, two weeks after the arbitrator deliberated on my claim. With palpable frustration, Senator Ron Boswell exclaimed to this Telstra thug, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,”. 

Almost four years before this outburst on page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports  Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate, David Krastnostine 

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's (TIO) office or within government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

However, the In-Camera- ansard dated 9 July 1998, which the people of Australia are not supposed to be privy to, shows the gravity of Senator Boswell's outburst, which quickly caught the attention of the committee chair, prompting a swift intervention. Under scrutiny and recognising the need for decorum in such a serious forum, Senator Boswell was compelled to offer an apology. Turning to the chairperson more measuredly, he declared, “Madam, I withdraw that remark.” This moment of accountability underscored the importance of respectful dialogue in legislative discussions and illuminated the ongoing challenges surrounding Telstra’s treatment of COT Cases, which should be a matter of significant public interest in 2025

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

I want to emphasise my firm belief that the Major Fraud Group was deeply embarrassed by being forced to abandon their investigations into Telstra's alleged fraud against the COT Cases. This abandonment occurred as the Australian Federal Police did in 1994 and 1995 during the COT arbitrations, under pressure from the government. This prevailing sense of shame inadvertently led to my receipt of the In-Camera Hansard documents from July 6 and 9, which contain critical information that I have not yet disclosed. 

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with". 

I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced under duress into arbitration with the same monstrous Telstra Corporation who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.      

"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate," - "As part of that investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work done by the technical officers."  “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,”  - Mr Direen then states: " When I attended at the exchange, I found the log book was missing and could not be located" but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”  → that of course was me.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LOGBOOK?

Before the COT Cases went into arbitration, we were told we could check out our local telephone exchange logbook. The arbitrator could see parts of it that we requested, but I never saw the logbook for the exchange that serviced my business. As shown above, Des Direen, Telstra's head of security, didn’t get access to the logbook either. How can we have a fair arbitration process if one side can show its evidence while the other can’t?

Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.

To address this alarming situation, a survey leaflet was distributed to all police officers within the Major Fraud Group office. This leaflet specifically inquired if any officer had inadvertently collected my documents related to the Bell Canada International report. Regrettably, none of the officers came forward that day to acknowledge any error in collecting the documents, which raises serious concerns about handling sensitive information.

I conclude from the comments made on absentjustice.com. Voltaire warned that it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. I believe, as all those who suddenly saw something wrong became whistleblowers, knowing from then on that freedom matters, oppression and abuse of power simply must be resisted. Those who become whistleblowers believe their stand can make a difference. Even after thirty years of fighting the mammoth known as the Telstra Corporation, struggling for justice, I hold firm to the principle of equality before the law for all. It matters. It is a non-negotiable value of this great nation of Australia. It sustains our freedom and democracy. 

15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Once Senator Joyce cast that crucial vote (the one vote hanging in the balance) and made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip. What made the government break their promise? To find out, click on Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.  

In 2015, I presented pivotal evidence to the Australian Federal Police, several high-ranking government ministers, and four pertinent government agencies tasked with investigating such matters. I sought answers to why these vital clauses in the Confidentiality Agreement were altered and ultimately stripped from the arbitration agreement in two distinct incidents. Despite my thorough efforts, each agency declined to investigate further, leaving a cloud of unresolved concerns.

In an even more troubling twist, when the government became aware of this profound denial of justice, they took action to reinstate clauses 25 and 26 for the remaining twelve cases, allowing these claimants—collectively known as the COT Cases—to appeal their decisions based on negligence by the arbitration consultants. Disturbingly, the three claimants involved were kept in the dark about the amendments to the other twelve agreements, further complicating an already flawed process.

The meticulous work of redacting names and sensitive information from the intricate saga of the COT Cases has proven to be both labour-intensive and financially draining. Given that no subsequent actions have arisen from these redacted documents, I feel it is vital to share the evidence on absentjustice.com. We must not shy away from identifying those who bear responsibility, including certain government regulators and elite figures in Australia who operate behind the scenes to safeguard the government’s interests.

How does one share a deeply unsettling story without revealing the identities of those who relentlessly pressure low-income Australians into repaying financial assistance they once received, all while looming threats from these powerful public officials hover over them? This is the disturbing reality of the infamous Robodebt scheme.

(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

My story, rooted in the complexities of the COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) experience, highlights a remarkable coalition of twenty-one Australians. Sixteen of them endured outright discrimination from public servants within our government. Driven by a profound sense of justice and a commitment to uncovering the truth, this group tirelessly sought to expose the negligence of AUSTEL, the then-government communications authority now known as ACMA. They unearthed startling evidence that over 120,000 Australians were grappling with significant phone issues—issues all but ignored by the government, as documented in a damning report dated April 13, 1994. The report revealed, with shocking clarity, that officials acknowledged only a limited range of phone problems, deliberately omitting the existence of the extensive COT-type complaints, which Telstra had pressured AUSTEL to keep silent about before the report was presented to the COT Case arbitrator, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, and the public at large.

How can one articulate such an extraordinary narrative when your editor incessantly demands more substantial evidence to back your claims, firmly asserting that she cannot refine your seemingly incomprehensible assertions without undeniable proof? What steps can you take to unravel the unsettling truth that the defendants in the arbitration process—once a powerful government-owned telecommunications giant—had the audacity to leverage their network equipment to covertly screen faxed materials leaving your office? They stored these sensitive documents without your consent or even your knowledge, rerouting them to their intended recipients under false pretences. Were these defendants exploiting this intercepted information to strengthen their defence in arbitration, ultimately jeopardising the chances of innocent claimants who were merely seeking justice?

Consider the gravity of the situation: how many other arbitration processes in Australia have fallen victim to this insidious and covert form of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping—this blatant intrusion into highly confidential documentation—still an ongoing reality in legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the claimants involved in the arbitration submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, revealing that sensitive, arbitration-related documents were being clandestinely and illegally screened before they reached their intended destinations.

In my own case, despite the arbitrator's contradictory statement—confirming that six of my faxed claim documents never made it to him—I was shockingly denied the opportunity to resubmit this critical material for assessment. My fax account provides irrefutable evidence that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions. 

Interestingly, one of the two technical consultants who signed off on the findings in that report, in a letter dated December 17, 2014, told me, “I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had, at some stage, been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted. This was evidenced by the dual time stamps on the faxes.” 

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

As I diligently worked on my draft in 1999, I shared it with Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister. She was deeply taken aback by the unwavering denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had suffered. Helen had visited my modest holiday camp twice, and after reviewing my draft, she looked at me with conviction and said, “I will get Rupert to publish this; he will be shocked.”

One of the most perplexing aspects of my narrative for Helen was the concrete evidence I had amassed, illustrating the extensive duration during which I had suffered from illegal fax hacking. This alarming breach of privacy persisted even during her second visit to my camp, highlighting the invasive nature of this violation. It’s important to remember that in 1999, the scandal surrounding the 'News of the World' and her brother’s troubles had yet to unfold. The information I later provided to the Australian Federal Police revealed that illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations—of which I was also a claimant—dated back as far as 1994. The evidence I provided to Helen suggested that this nefarious fax hacking was still pervasive at my business in 1999, a staggering four years after my arbitration was supposed to address these grievous injustices.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues. Refer to the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the transcripts explicitly stating, the document: "... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."

Tragically, Helen passed away in 2004, a profound loss that echoed through the circles of those who valued her voice. In the following years, I sent a draft of the original version of my book, "Ring for Justice," to her husband, Geoff Handbury, hoping to recapture the spirit of our prior discussions. I recounted my conversation with Helen and humbly asked if he could provide guidance on how best to get a copy of the book into Rupert Murdoch's hands.

On October 17, 2012, Mr. Handbury replied with a handwritten letter that showcased beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship, a testament to a bygone era that feels almost obsolete in today’s digital age. Yet, despite being a well-respected philanthropist with deep ties to numerous charitable initiatives across Victoria, he was 87 years old, and regrettably, too much time had elapsed for him to assist me. Nonetheless, I cherish the memory of how the sister of the world’s most powerful newspaper owner believed my “intriguing story” deserved publication, and I remain immensely thankful for her unwavering support and belief in my cause.

Now, how can I effectively unveil my COT story—one that intricately weaves together the actions of public servants within government agencies who leaked privileged information to the Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier, Telstra—while still safeguarding the essential documents from the claimants involved in those mediations and arbitrations? These fellow Australian citizens are desperate for justice in a system that should be their sanctuary, shielding them from the injustices they have endured.

It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.

I reference the two witness statements in File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789. These critical statements vividly illustrate how a police officer felt helpless and overwhelmed while navigating a complex situation with the Telstra Corporation. Similarly, the COT Cases found themselves in a tense and challenging position, being coerced into arbitration with Telstra under significant pressure. The arbitrator and the administrator overseeing the COT arbitrations appeared to be apprehensive about withdrawing from the process, mainly due to the immense power and influence that Telstra wields within the Australian legal system. I encourage you to read the following two witness statements for further insight. 

"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”  (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.

What has not been proven, even though both the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes and the administrator to my arbitration, Warwick Smith, were aware that the Australian Federal Police was investigating the same phone/fax interception issues that Des Direen on behalf of Telstra was investigating at the Portland Telephone exchange, were real problems of great concern no stepped forward to confirm either one way of another transparently were my advance group booking enquires being redirected to another holiday camp operator or a booking agent on commission from holiday camp operators to bring business their way unaware that business they were now being advised of was poached from my intercepted telephone and faxes?

In late 1999, a significant development unfolded during an investigation by the Major Fraud Group, led by Barrister Neil Jepson. As the probe progressed, Mr. Jepson uncovered troubling fraud allegations put forth by Barrister Sue Owens. These allegations were on behalf of four individuals involved in the COT Cases: Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer.

The allegations suggested a startling connection to Senator Ron Boswell, who had reportedly been implicated in similar claims that I had filed with the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, at the onset of my government-endorsed arbitration process in 1994. Dr. Hughes's unwillingness to investigate these serious claims made this situation even more alarming, leaving many questions unanswered.

A troubling revelation emerged, adding further complexity to an already tangled situation: critical faxes containing essential information about the fraud allegations had been intercepted before they could reach Dr. Hughes’s office. This unexpected interference created confusion and severely obstructed my efforts to compile and submit a comprehensive arbitration claim. In the wake of these unsettling developments, Mr. Jepson urgently contacted me, imploring my assistance to illuminate this grave matter, which had abruptly derailed my arbitration process. This situation had disallowed DMR & Lane, the advisors to the arbitrator, from securing the additional weeks they had requested on 30 April 1995 to finalise my arbitration adequately. Consequently, my case was prematurely concluded on 11 May 1995.

Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

As the situation unfolded, the government communications authority, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), was informed that the systemic billing issues I had initially reported to them on 9 June 1993 and subsequently followed up on through March 1994 had not been thoroughly investigated by the arbitrator nor adequately addressed by Telstra. In a clandestine manoeuvre, AUSTEL permitted Telstra to handle that segment of my claim in camera on 16 October, without my presence or that of Dr. Hughes. This stripped me of my legal right to contest Telstra's submission on 16 October 1995, leaving Dr. Hughes powerless to issue a finding.

In sharp contrast, Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan were afforded an additional thirteen months each to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence of those claims. Meanwhile, Dr. Hughes had only permitted me to submit a complete claim, leaving me at a significant disadvantage in an already challenging landscape.

Moreover, Dr. Hughes surprised everyone by granting an unexpected two-year extension in the arbitration case of Graham Schorer. This decision essentially allowed him an additional two years, on top of the thirteen-month extension he had already been provided in the other two COT cases, to finalise his claim. One can only speculate about the motivations behind this notable favour, which seems particularly curious given that Dr. Hughes had previously assisted Mr. Schorer in a contentious Federal Court case against Telstra. In that instance, Dr. Hughes’s office had controversially withheld crucial evidence from Graham during the proceedings three years earlier, as detailed in the following Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest

Mr Jepson and several other members of the Major Fraud Group, who had worked with me three times on various two-day occasions, with me stopping in an apartment two blocks from their office, which was a short walk to Queens Road Melbourme where this apartment was, were stunned by this evidence and my ability to prove that Telstra and the government perverted the course of justice (on three occasions) by concealing the truth from the arbitration process.  It is critical at this point that a link to the unlaw way in which Dr Gordon Hughes between 1994 and at least 26 September 1997, had no control over the arbitration process as proven to be the case by John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of the COT when he alerted the Senate and the government in an official Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report also dated 26 September 1997.

I need to reference John Pinnock's official acknowledgement, which includes the threats made during my arbitration. It's important to highlight that Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith did nothing to prevent Telstra from carrying out those threats. Additionally, the Australian Federal Police appeared powerless to intervene, not only in my arbitration but also in the arbitrations of all sixteen cases involved in the COT arbitration and mediation processes.

This combination of governmental endorsement of the arbitration process and the failure of the Australian Federal Police to act was further complicated by a Major Fraud Group investigation by Victoria Police from 1998 to 2000. This investigation, which aimed to address the serious denial of justice faced by the COT cases, was ultimately abandoned. However, before this startling turn of events, which led to me being asked to meet with two very influential police officers who literally forced me to take a large manila envelope home with me on leaving the St Kilida Road Victorian Police complex with assurance my five huge storage boxes of evidence would be couried to me shortly. When I asked if they could place this manila envelope in with the five storage boxes, which I received about a week later, the abruptness from both police officers was noticeable. Take it now. 

Labor Party Senator Chris Schacht further articulated the gravity of the situation, emphasizing to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if the telecommunications giant were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases, while neglecting the other unresolved cases, it would be a profound "injustice to those remaining 16" individuals. Despite this warning, the John Howard National Liberal Party government moved forward, approving punitive damages for those five 'litmus' test cases to eighteen million dollars. In a remarkable turn of events, more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents, which had been shrouded in secrecy and initially withheld from the five 'litmus' test cases as well as the still unresolved sixteen COT cases, who in 2025, have still not been allowed to view those previously withheld 150,000 FOI documents.

At least some of the sixteen COT cases, including me, might have had the potential to utilise these previously hidden 150,000 FOI documents to bolster an appeal against their arbitration awards.